Chiang, Ming-Hung

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 9, 2020

2019003423 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/836,254 08/09/2007 Ming-Hung Chiang 250318-5440 2903 109673 7590 10/09/2020 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP 280 Interstate North Circle SE Suite 550 Atlanta, GA 30339 EXAMINER TILLERY, RASHAWN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/09/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com terri.logan@mqrlaw.com uspatents@mqrlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING-HUNG CHIANG Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CyberLink Corp. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application explains that, “[w]hile Blu-ray or high-density DVDs (HD DVDs) can provide the fonts therein to be selected, the subject matter of the present invention further includes a user interface built into the playback program that allows a user to select the font in which subtitles are displayed” in order to facilitate “a font changing method for video subtitles.” Spec. 3:10, 11, 21–24. Claims 1–4, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 are pending; claims 1 and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. A-1–A-4 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with bracketed lettering and emphases added): 1. A font changing method for subtitles of a video to playback, wherein a user interface is introduced to allow a font for a video subtitle to be changed, and the video and the font are two separated files, comprising: reading data from a disc; retrieving required information from the disc for an initialization process; [a] determining whether or not the disc supports a format with separated video streaming and subtitle data based on the required information from the disc, wherein the format supports configuring the font for video subtitles; setting up a font option item selected from font size, font color, and further options including bold, italic, superscript, subscript and underlined font for the subtitle from a disc menu when the disc supports the format with separated video streaming and subtitle data; introducing the user interface to browse font files from a removable non-transitory storage medium, wherein the removable non-transitory storage medium is one of: a hard disk, a portable disk drive, and a network-based disk space; Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 3 [b] selecting one of the font files from the removable non- transitory storage medium, wherein the font files are not natively supported by the disc; and joining, by the playback program, the selected font with the video streaming, and playing the video. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Sato US 2005/0160109 A1 July 21, 2005 Seo US 7,751,688 B2 July 6, 2010 Blu-ray Disc Application Definition Blu-ray Disc Format, BD-J Baseline Application and Logical Model Definition for BD-ROM, March 2005 ("Blu-ray DA"). Claims 1–4, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious in view of Seo, Blu-ray DA, and Sato. Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 4 Limitation [a] Appellant argues Seo does not teach or suggest limitation [a]: Seo expressly states that the “style” of a subtitle relates to the position and the font size of the subtitles. Notably, there is no mention or suggestion of “determining whether or not the disc supports a format with separated video streaming and subtitle data based on the required information from the disc, wherein the format supports configuring the font for video subtitles” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We find the Examiner’s determination to be reasonable. Particularly, the Examiner finds Seo teaches or suggests limitation [a], because Seo discloses playing subtitles from Blu-Ray discs having a “stream directory [which] includes at least one subtitle stream, which includes text data for a text subtitle and a set of style information corresponding to a set of user-selectable styles,” and “further includes style information corresponding to a default style.” Final Act. 3, 4 (emphasis omitted); Seo 4:1–14. Appellant has not shown these teachings are distinguishable from disputed limitation [a]. Although Appellant has provided a general description of Seo along with a restatement of the claim limitations (see App. Br. 5, 6), Appellant has not provided a meaningful analysis of the disputed claim terms or the cited specific textual portions of Seo upon which the Examiner relied in the rejection. That is, Appellant’s arguments fail to compare and contrast the claim limitations with the Examiner’s specific findings to show error therein. See Final Act. 3, 4; Seo Fig. 6. Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 5 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that, “by determining that the disc is a Blu-ray disc and operable with Seo’s system, it is determined that the disc supports a format with separated video streaming and ‘configurable’ subtitle data by virtue of the Blu-ray industry standards.”2 Ans. 3–4; see also Final Act. 4. In the reply brief, Appellant argues that “[f]urthermore, Blu-ray DA . . . does not remedy this deficiency in Seo,” and, “in section 7.1.3.4 on p. 43, Blu-ray DA states ‘A content author desiring to use a specific default font shall provide this font on the BD-ROM disc.’” Reply Br. 3. To the extent Blu-ray DA is relied on by the Examiner, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection. Although Blu-ray DA discusses a “default font,” this default is optional (for “[a] content author desiring to use a specific default font”), and the reference further teaches “font files can be provided on the BD-ROM disc or downloaded from the network.” Blu-ray DA p. 43. Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s inclusion of Blu-ray DA in the rejection. See Final Act. 7, 8. Appellant has not shown the Examiner errs in finding limitation [a] to be obvious in view of the cited references. See Final Act. 4. 2 Separately and not relied on for our ultimate holding herein, we note limitation [a] recites, inter alia, “wherein the format supports configuring the font.” The claim does not specify a party to configure the font. As broadly but reasonably construed, the limitation is taught or suggested by Seo’s disclosure that the Blu-ray author can set the default font information. See Seo 4:13–16. Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 6 Limitation [b] Appellant argues “Sato does not disclose or suggest ‘selecting one of the font files from the removable non-transitory storage medium, wherein the font files are not natively supported by the disc’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends “Sato discloses that an external memory controller controls access to an external memory that stores font data. Other than this brief mention of font data in paragraph [0076], however, there is no discussion relating to this font data.” Id. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The claim term “natively” is not mentioned in the Specification. For support of this term, Appellant references the Specification’s disclosure that “the font shown on the video is not limited to what is stored on the disc,” such that “the font database 45 can include the font files stored in any kind of storage medium mentioned above, such as the files on a hard disk, or the files on a portable disk drive, or the files stored on a network-based disk space.” Spec. 9:1–5. Thus, in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Sato teaches or suggests selecting not natively supported fonts as claimed, because Sato describes an “external memory 111 that store[s] . . . font data.” Sato ¶ 76; Final Act. 10. Further, we do not find that Appellant has presented evidence or reasoning sufficient to show that using Sato’s non-native fonts, with Seo in view of Blu-ray DA’s method, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding limitation [b] to be obvious in view of the cited references. Appeal 2019-003423 Application 11/836,254 7 CONCLUSION We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding independent claim 1 to be obvious in view of Seo, Blu-ray DA, and Sato. Appellant presents substantially similar arguments for independent claim 13, which we find unpersuasive for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 8–11. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, and the claims dependent thereon which are not separately argued. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, 18–20 103(a) Seo, Blu-ray DA, Sato 1–4, 7–9, 13, 15, 16, 18–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED